Delhi High Court upholds Rajpal Yadav's conviction in Cheque Bounce cases, refuses probation

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed Yadav's revision petitions and upheld the sentence awarded by the trial court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The High Court directed that the amount of Rs 2.25 crore already deposited before the Court and released to the complainant shall be adjusted while computing the liability payable by Yadav.

The Court further ordered that the actor shall undergo three months' imprisonment in each of the seven cheque bounce cases, with all the sentences running concurrently. It also directed him to pay the fine imposed by the trial court, observing that failure to pay the fine would entail six months' imprisonment. The Court granted Yadav two months' time to either comply with the judgment or avail of legal remedies before the appropriate forum.

Significantly, the High Court declined to grant Yadav the benefit of probation, taking into consideration his overall conduct during the litigation, including repeated violations of undertakings furnished before the Court.

The judgment was reserved on April 2 after repeated attempts by the High Court to facilitate a settlement between the actor and the complainant failed.

During the hearings, the Court had expressed concern over Yadav's shifting stand regarding repayment of the outstanding dues. At one stage, Justice Sharma observed, "I am not getting my answers. The undertaking said something else and now you are saying something else," while questioning the inconsistencies in the submissions made on behalf of the actor.

The Court had also cautioned the parties over the manner in which the proceedings were being conducted, remarking, "Never think the judge weak if the judge is nice to you," while noting that considerable judicial time had been consumed.

Appearing for the complainant company, Murli Projects Pvt. Ltd., advocate Avnish Sikka had argued that Yadav had accepted the conviction recorded by the trial court and could not subsequently avoid his financial liability. He submitted that the revision petitions, filed after an unexplained delay of 1,894 days, failed to disclose sufficient grounds for condonation of delay.

Sikka had further contended that completion of the sentence did not extinguish the liability arising from the dishonoured cheques and that despite repeated assurances and undertakings, the dues remained unpaid, compelling the complainant to continue proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Throughout the proceedings, the High Court made sustained efforts to bring about a settlement. On the Court's suggestion, the complainant had agreed to accept 6 crore as a full and final settlement. The Court also explored the possibility of a structured payment mechanism by suggesting payment of 3 crore within a stipulated timeframe.

However, Yadav, appearing virtually during the final hearing, declined the proposals, stating that he had already suffered severe financial losses, had sold his property and had made substantial payments towards the liability. As the parties failed to reach an amicable settlement, the Court reserved its judgment.

Speaking to ANI after the verdict, advocate Avnish Sikka, appearing for Murli Projects Pvt. Ltd., said the High Court had upheld the trial court's judgment in its entirety.

"All the revision petitions filed by Rajpal Yadav have been dismissed and the order of the trial court has been upheld. The High Court has directed him to undergo three months' imprisonment, with the sentences running concurrently, and has also directed payment of the amount as ordered. The Court has refused to grant probation after taking into account his conduct before the Court and repeated violations of the undertakings given by him," Sikka said.

He further stated that the High Court also took note of a statement allegedly made by Yadav during the proceedings indicating that he was prepared to go to jail, and held that such circumstances did not justify extending the benefit of probation.

According to Sikka, the High Court has granted Yadav two months to either comply with the judgment or challenge it before the appropriate appellate forum.

Earlier, the High Court had extended Yadav's interim bail after taking note of partial payments made towards the outstanding dues. The litigation arose out of multiple cheque dishonour complaints in which the actor had been convicted by the trial court. While the High Court granted several opportunities for settlement, it repeatedly noted non-compliance with payment undertakings furnished during the proceedings.

Representing Yadav, advocate Bhaskar Upadhyay had argued that the actor should not suffer because of mistakes allegedly committed by his previous counsel and submitted that the criminal proceedings had adversely affected his professional career. (ANI)